MHB Are rationals adjoin cube root of 3 a field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ragnarok7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cube Field Root
Ragnarok7
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Is $$\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{3})=\{a+b\sqrt[3]{3}+c\sqrt[3]{9}\mid a,b,c\in\mathbb{Q}\}$$ a ring? If it is a ring, is it a field?

I have shown that it is a ring; however, I am not sure that it is a field, since in my calculations it does not seem to be closed under inverses. But I read somewhere that $$\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2})$$ is a field, so could someone confirm or deny this for me? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ragnarok said:
Is $$\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{3})=\{a+b\sqrt[3]{3}+c\sqrt[3]{9}\mid a,b,c\in\mathbb{Q}\}$$ a ring? If it is a ring, is it a field?

I have shown that it is a ring; however, I am not sure that it is a field, since in my calculations it does not seem to be closed under inverses. But I read somewhere that $$\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2})$$ is a field, so could someone confirm or deny this for me? Thanks!

Hi Ragnarok,

Indeed $\Bbb Q(\sqrt[3]{3})$ is a field. Let $\alpha = \sqrt[3]{3}$. Then $\alpha$ is a root of the polynomial $x^3 - 3$, so we can identify $\Bbb Q(\sqrt[3]{3})$ with polynomials $p(x)\in Q[x]$ subject to the constraint $x^3 = 3$. This is naturally identified with the factor ring $\Bbb Q[x]/(x^3 - 3)$. Rigorously speaking, since the substitution map $\phi_{\sqrt[3]{3}} : \Bbb Q[x] \to \Bbb Q(\sqrt[3]{3})$ sending $p(x)$ to $p(\sqrt[3]{3})$ is a ring homomorphism with kernel $(x^3 - 3)$, it induces an isomorphism of $\Bbb Q[x]/(x^3 - 3)$ onto $\Bbb Q(\sqrt[3]{3})$. Since $x^3 - 3$ is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$, the ideal $(x^3 - 3)$ is maximal in $\Bbb Q[x]$ and hence $\Bbb Q[x]/(x^3 - 3)$ is a field. Therefore $\Bbb Q(\sqrt[3]{3})$ is a field.
 
(more or less Euge's answer, a bit simplified and nonrigorified)

Let us think of it in a more general context : $F$ be a field and $\alpha$ be some $F$-algebraic (root of a polynomial over $F[x]$) of degree $n$. Define the ring $F[\alpha]$ to be the ring with arbitrary elements of the form $a_0 + a_1 \alpha^1 + a_2 \alpha^2 + \cdots + a_{n - 1} \alpha^{n-1}$ for $a_i \in F$.

It is, as you see, most certainly a ring. We claim that the ring $F[\alpha]$ is already closed under inversion and thus is a field. Let's look at some examples first : Take the field $\Bbb Q$. $\sqrt{2}$ is an algebraic over the field (root of $X^2 - 2$), thus adjoin it to the base field to get the ring $\Bbb Q[\sqrt{2}]$. The arbitrary elements here are of the form $a + b\sqrt{2}$, as $\sqrt{2}$ is a quadratic. If this ring is to be a field, each element of this form must have an inverse. However, note that $(a + b\sqrt{2})(a - b\sqrt{2}) = a^2 - 2b^2 \in \Bbb Q$. Thus, the inverse of $a + b\sqrt{2}$ is $a' + b'\sqrt{2}$, where $a' = a(a^2-2b^2)^{-1}$ and $b' = -b(a^2-2b^2)^{-1}$. Hence $\Bbb Q[\sqrt{2}]$ is a field.

A powerful way to think of field extensions is to compare with polynomial rings. Take $F[\alpha]$ and let's compare it with $F[X]$ for some $F$-transcendental $X$. There is a canonical map $\varphi : F[X] \to F[\alpha]$ by sending $X$ to $\alpha$. It's clearly an injective homomorphism, however it's NOT surjective. $0$ in $F[X]$ goes to $0$ in $F[\sqrt{2}]$, but the minimal polynomial $f(X)$ of $\alpha$ in $F[X]$ also goes to $0 = f(\alpha)$ in $F[\alpha]$. In fact, all $F[X]$-multiples of $f(X)$ goes to the identity in $F[\alpha]$, so the measure of nonsurjectivity (the fancy name being "kernel") is the ideal $\langle f(X) \rangle = \{f(X) \cdot g(X) \, : \, g(X) \in F[X] \}$. From the first isomorphism theorem $F[\alpha] \cong F[X]/\langle f(X) \rangle$.

Note that $f(X)$ is an irreducible polynomialso if one picks up some arbitrary polynomial $k(X)$ not included in the fibres over $0$ w.r.t. $\varphi$, then $(f(X), k(X)) = 1$ and by Bezout's lemma, there exists polynomials $a(X)$ and $b(X)$ such that $a(X)k(X) + b(X)f(X) = 1$. The identity must also hold modulo $f(x)$, so $a(x)k(x) = 1$ over $F[X]/\langle f(X) \rangle$, thus $a(X)$ is the inverse of $k(X)$, implying $F[X]/\langle f(X) \rangle$ is a field. Hence $F[\alpha]$ is also a field. $\blacksquare$
 
Thank you mathbalarka, for the explanation! I was surprised at how much I understood of it.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
800
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K